subjunctive

Hi,

Theoretically ..... possible. But I kind of feel uncomfortable using 'with' as subjunctive. I cannot detect in 'with' the feel of 'unreality' or 'impossibleness' that the subjunctive mood has...

Yeah, I agree with you.

It's not the sort of thing we'd say very much, which contributes to its oddness.

Clive

I wonder whether it's the example, rather than the structure:

1. I'd be lost without you.
2. I don't know what I'd do, without my iPod.
3. Where would we be, without tv?

It seems to have a slightly more emotional air than the subjunctive. (Maybe that's why we don't hear it as often.)

MrP

Thank you, Clive.

------
MrP,

'An emotional air'. Interesting.

But all of your examples are about 'without ...' Do you agree with me that you don't usually use 'with...' as 'If S had...'?

Yes, it does seem rarer.

1. "With hindsight, I would have answered differently."

2. "If I had known then what I know now, I would have answered differently."

Hmm. Is it a direct "with clause"/"subjunctive" exchange, though?

MrP

Hello there,
This question is complicated from the outset, so I hope it wouldn't add to much trouble if I **** in here. I'm wondering whether {without X} could be considered as a trigger of Negative/Positive Polarity Items. Its common property, I think, can be demonstrated as follows:

..................................................................................
[1] Withou

Hello Rho

[3] (?) With X, he can solve the toughest puzzle.
[4] (?) With X, he cannot solve the easiest puzzle.

A quantificational reading (such as 'ANY puzzle') is not available in [3] and [4].

That's an interesting point. But couldn't we say that "the toughest puzzle" implies "any puzzle in #3"?

Your examples also demonstrate that "with/without" ca

Hello MrPedantic, yep, you are quite right!
Then {with X} and {without X} (should?) have the same status, in principle, as expressions which set some 'condition.'

Then we have to seek purely 'pragmatic' explanations to account for the oddity, as you and Clive did. (I won't disagree!)

I'm studying now about these matters, I haven't read about relations between {without X} a

Hello guys

This question is interesting.

My dictionaries give an explanation to the use of subjunctive mood after a <without …> phrase but not after a <with …> phrase. However, some writers indeed used a <with …> phrase as a substitute for an unreal conditional clause “if there were …” or "if subject had ...".

"On the other side of the railway a horse

Hi paco! thank you for your data, as always,

[F]

[L]

[8]

"With a rifle, I could have killed him easily"
"With a little bit of professional help, I think this could have been a great book."

Personally, I still don't feel the subjunctive air in those 'with's. It seems to me that they are 'by the means of something' and 'in support of something', if defin